Flow of the Subject
Given the complexity of physics, and the large range it covers, I think we should aim to explain the subject in a definite direction. That is, we should either discuss the physics of the very large objects and work our way to smaller dimensions, or the other way around. I vote for the former, as people can picture a planet and not, say, a quark. Not to mention that our understanding of large-objects is almost definite, while it's the smaller things that tend to bother us physicists. I like how the biology page looks, with its pictures. Is there anyone that understands public licensing blah blah enough so that we can get some very neat picture of concepts/people in physics? We should make the subject as inviting as possible, and even consider being colloquial with the language (while maintaining — (The Constabulary has removed an initialism here. Please use plain English instead, for example, "unbiased" or "neutral" ) —).
Jesse Singh 21:03, 26 February 2007 (PST)
I just checked some of the revisions. I think it would help to understand what is going on as the article develops if a short rationale could be given as revisions are made....otherwise it's difficult to see the wood for the trees as it were. Thanks--luke 02:01, 13 November 2006 (CST)
- My overall aims have been to
- Improve the readability of the article.
- Remove random bits of information (like some seemingly randomly picked links.)
- remove the slight bias of the article toward astrophysics, particle and field theory (fields that most physicicsts don't work it)
- In several places, the field of physics as structured in an undergraduate curriculum is confused with physics as a discipline.
- Reduce some of the long lists.
- If you look at the Biology rewrite, they seem to be doing similar work.
Fred Salsbury 07:03, 13 November 2006 (CST)
Taking the lead from the Biology article, "Biology is the science of life." I would like to suggest this article could be structured around the opening statement of "Physics is the science of energy."
This follows from the Systems Theory model of the universe wherein components are linked by the flow of three (3) fundamental items:
- Energy (Physics)
- Information (Computer Science)
- Material (Chemistry)
On the map of General Systems Theory (GST), Biology is the next step in system complexity having components capable of accepting and delivering energy, information and material in a self-maintaining open system of the cell (the fundamental unit of life). The current introduction of the Physics article states "physics is the most basic of the physical sciences." While this view is shared in the GST, it really doesn't tell the reader what physics "is". --William Weaver 06:12, 18 December 2006 (CST)
- I don't think it would be a good idea to mold the science articles around the Systems Theory model since that model is not well-accepted, and we shouldn't be imposing -- any more than is strictly necessary -- our own framework on science.
Having wrote that, the statement that "Physics is the science of energy and matter" would be probably be a good start. Fred Salsbury 06:22, 18 December 2006 (CST)
- A vast improvement! =] --William Weaver 06:27, 18 December 2006 (CST)
General relativity and gravitation under-represented in this draft
My take as above. Also, in my lexicon, classical physics does not include relativity. I think this is the generally accepted usage. Sorry I don't have a draft to propose, but Wikipedia is an improvement in my opinion, although it also needs more emphasis on GR and gravitation. As a start, I suggest adding a bullet "General Relativity" in parallel to "Classical Mechanics" and "Quantum Mechanics". Then put the others under a different heading and add a bullet for "Gravitation" in parallel with "Electromagnetism" and "Statistical Mechanics". James Graber
- I disagree on that general relativity and especially that gravitation are under-represented.. First, the generally accepted usage is that relativity is classical, albeit non-Newtonian (as opposed to quantum). Check out most classical mechanics texts. Second, adding gravitation in parallel with "Electromagnetism" and "Statistical Mechanics" would imply that it is a comparable general tool, which it clearly is not. Most physicists do not learn about gravitation beyond a brief introduction to relativity. Fred Salsbury 06:03, 30 January 2007 (CST)
- Having said this the article could still use improvement, so if you have some other changes go for it. Fred Salsbury 06:03, 30 January 2007 (CST)
- I have to completely disagree that the generally accepted usage is that SR or GR is classical. I was certainly never taught that and now that I teach it, none of the text books (Tipler+Llewellyn "Modern Physics", Harris "Non-classical Physics" etc.) I reviewed or use treat SR as "classical". Perhaps you are getting confused with "classical relativity" which is usually used to refer to Galilean transforms rather than the Lorentz? User:Roger Moore 13:05, 6th September 2007
I guess I'll have to go over to Mathematics then and tell them that general relativity isn't physics, so they'd better get busy working on it! Actually, that does sound like an odd claim to me. What is it then? Astrophysics? Cosmology? Differential Geometry? Greg Woodhouse 18:42, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
General Relativity is pure physics, not some sub-part of it. It i s like saying classical mechanics is physics/A and quantum is physics/B. The all belong to toplevel physics. Sure it is nice cosmology and astrophysics used it to their advantage, but then all science did is use math to explain things (prove the explanation given falls under standard math laws) - are they now all of a sudden math topics? Robert Tito | Talk 19:01, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
- Well, obviously(!) I was being facetious here. Greg Woodhouse 21:09, 30 April 2007 (CDT)
Textbooks - Bibliography
Will anyone object if I initialize the Related Articles subpage? ... Peter Lyall Easthope 10:20, 9 May 2008 (CDT)